The Absence Of Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which I am aware of, but it's not a problem if you don't miss the point - two in fact.

Other than as an alert, shouting 'Lipski' on its own, is rather meaningless. Contrast this to the word being used as a verb - I'm going to Lipski you! - which is meaningful.

Secondly, although the word when used as a proper noun carries negative connotations, the purpose of shouting 'Lipski' as an alert, is to warn the recipient of the alert, not to insult the subject of the alert. Time is of the essence.

I can't see why you are making these assumptions. Your average Whitechapel inhabitant was hardly likely to have considered the niceties of grammar. Lipski could simply have been yelled as an insult to scare Schwartz off. Maybe he even added other words which Schwartz assumed were aimed at the woman? Maybe he said "get lost Lipski" but Lipski was the only word that he recognised?

[Wickerman]

How can pipeman be eliminated from enquiries so quickly? Surely his account of events would only go to strengthen the Schwartz account and was part of the murder team, or he himself was witnessing the murder, albeit from a slight distance.

To simply be cleared with no rhyme or reason means one of two things. The police did not believe Schwartz at all and pipeman may have been held back as a witness against Schwartz. Or pipeman never existed.

Not another one who 'never existed'?
So now we have Schwartz - who never existed, who invented Pipeman - who never existed?

[Wickerman]

Pipeman definitely existed, but have you any thoughts on why Wess knows something about the chase along Fairclough street, but Edward Spooner - standing on that street at a quarter to one - apparently does not?

Interesting, can't wait for the next part.

[rjpalmer]

Schwartz and Astrakhan Collar might be elusive, not they're not illusive. At least, I don't think so.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Interesting, can't wait for the next part.

Thanks. I have started writing the next part ...

After carefully studying the testimony of Edward Spooner, I have come to a rather startling conclusion. Edward Spooner's lady friend, didn't exist!

[Wickerman]

Schwartz and Astrakhan Collar might be elusive, not they're not illusive. At least, I don't think so.

Given the arguments leveled at both characters, are you absolutely sure?

[Wickerman]

Thanks. I have started writing the next part ...

After carefully studying the testimony of Edward Spooner, I have come to a rather startling conclusion. Edward Spooner's lady friend, didn't exist!

Fer f'k sake!

[erobitha]

Schwartz and Astrakhan Collar might be elusive, not they're not illusive. At least, I don't think so.

I'm open to ideas on how they can be proven to actually exist. Focusing in on Schwartz, why do we keep hitting dead ends with him do you think?

Some records somewhere must exist, yet talented researchers such as yourself cannot identify him categorically. A bit similar to MJK. We knew as a person she existed, yet research thus far has hit brick walls.

Not everyone was honest in giving details accurately or truthfully.

I believe it is so muddled, that someone is lying somehwere. The fact his story cannot be corroborated whereas there are branches of possible corroboration with others, leaves me to believe Shcwartz is the odd one out.

[erobitha]

Not another one who 'never existed'?
So now we have Schwartz - who never existed, who invented Pipeman - who never existed?

Keep up Jon

Schwartz was someone. Just not Israel Schwartz. He was an actor hired by someone to tell a story to deliberately muddle and confuse the investigation. Throw the scent off the jews, or to throw the scent on them - depends on who hired him. Not being able to speak English meant he could be talking absolute gibberish. His handy interpreter did all the talking in English.

Pipeman is an interesting detail in the story, but only the police seem to know categorically who he is apparently. And we hear no more about him. He isn't used as another witness. He isn't used in a case again Schwartz. He isn't used beyond a detail in Schwartz's story.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fer f'k sake!

It goes on ...

Yet the surprises do not stop there. How is that the actor known by the name of Israel Schwartz, could manage to fool a first class inspector with such an unlikely story? A story with no corroborating witnesses, and one that certainly did not fool either Coroner Wynne Baxter, or lower ranking police. In this instalment, I'm going to seriously consider the question; did Frederick George Abberline even exist?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not another one who 'never existed'?
So now we have Schwartz - who never existed, who invented Pipeman - who never existed?

Are you real Wick?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It goes on ...

Yet the surprises do not stop there. How is that the actor known by the name of Israel Schwartz, could manage to fool a first class inspector with such an unlikely story? A story with no corroborating witnesses, and one that certainly did not fool either Coroner Wynne Baxter, or lower ranking police. In this instalment, I'm going to seriously consider the question; did Frederick George Abberline even exist?

Reality check time....

Where is the proof the Schwartz was an actor?

Where is the proof that Baxter didn’t believe Schwartz or even held any opinion on him?

Why is it so improbable that the Schwartz incident wasn’t seen when it would have taken around 30 seconds at most (and probably less) and occurred in the early hours of the morning in a largely deserted street?

Why is a disturbance in the street such an outlandish occurrence?

......

What happened was.... Elizabeth Stride was killed between 12.45 and 12.55ish.....Louis Diemschutz discovered her body at 1.00 (possibly 1.01).....He and others went looking for a Constable....Lamb was found and returned to the yard around 1.05ish.

No mystery and certainly no cover up.

[Pcdunn]

Well for a start, don't assume any of this ...



Pipeman's account was evidently very different to that given by Schwartz. So different in fact, that initially he were only partly believed ...

Star, Oct 1: The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.



At Leman street, they sort of believed Schwartz, but also disbelieved at the same time. It was no more than about 50/50.
Investigations related to the Schwartz incident were therefore not going to continue there, until new information could clarify the contradictions ...

Star, Oct 2: In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts.

Those additional facts had to come to them - they weren't otherwise going to put any resources into the matter.

Now back to your initial question. Tracing through the logic of the two Star quotes, we have...

Oct 1:
One arrest, 'answering the description' given by Schwartz.
Is the man's statement accepted? Not wholly.
What does that imply? That he was at the scene of the Schwartz incident, but his side of the story is very different - perhaps radically so - and as Schwartz has spoken to Abberline without generating any suspicion, the prisoner's story is doubted, or partly so.
So who was it? Was it BS or Pipeman? Well one clue comes from who is the Police Gazette report ... and who isn't.

So at this stage it looks like Schwartz is fully believed, and arrests are starting to occur as a consequence of his statement.

Oct 2:
Another arrest, 'furnished from another source'.
Who could this other source be? Well BS assaulted Stride, and Pipeman chased away Schwartz, and there was no one else on the street - so hard to say!
Two arrests, so why does Leman street have reason to doubt the truth of Schwartz' story? Who could have contradicted it? Well unlikely they would take the word of BS Man over Schwartz - that would have to go to trial - so maybe the arrested prisoner was actually Pipeman, and they have come to believe his side of the story is the truth. Consequently, the doubts are now regarding Schwartz.
But how could Pipeman's story have been so thoroughly validated, that they are letting him go? I think there are enough clues in press report and inquest transcripts, to work out both that, and the actual identity of Pipeman.

Pipeman definitely existed, but have you any thoughts on why Wess knows something about the chase along Fairclough street, but Edward Spooner - standing on that street at a quarter to one - apparently does not?

What if Pipeman was an undercover policeman? That would tie in with his attitude of standing and watching the street. Perhaps actually interested in observing the Workers' Club, due to worries about anarchists and such.

Akin to today's police dramas where a man who is arrested turns out to be a government agent on another operation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm open to ideas on how they can be proven to actually exist. Focusing in on Schwartz, why do we keep hitting dead ends with him do you think?

Some records somewhere must exist, yet talented researchers such as yourself cannot identify him categorically. A bit similar to MJK. We knew as a person she existed, yet research thus far has hit brick walls.

I think there are a couple of clues to Schwartz' real identity, in Swanson's report

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Pipeman is an interesting detail in the story, but only the police seem to know categorically who he is apparently. And we hear no more about him. He isn't used as another witness. He isn't used in a case again Schwartz. He isn't used beyond a detail in Schwartz's story.

I haven't worked out why Pipeman was never used, but there is a clue to his identity, in Swanson's report